Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 7/14/15 3:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I have been using a slightly tweaked version of this and I have found
> > that the %w(80,4,4)%B thingy results in mangled formatting;
>
> I have since refined this to
>
> ... %n%n%w(0,4,4)%s%n%+b
>
> You might find that that works better.
Ah, yes it does, thanks.
> One of the curiosities is that the built-in log formats don't appear to
> be defined or easily definable in terms of the formatting language.
TBH I'm not surprised. Normally the built-in formats for things grow
organically in ad-hoc ways and the mini-languages for the generic
mechanisms don't support all the same features.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services